Pseudoscience

“...Is it crackpot?”

John Holland, remembering questions about his early research into genetic algorithms and adaptive systems.

I’ve been a little nervous since posting links to rationality sites from a blog that is not nearly as hard-science. Or even very soft science. Indeed, it can sometimes seem like nothing more than horoscopes and apophenia. So let it be noted that I’m aware of this, and doing what I can to toughen it up a bit.

One of the biggest dangers in a model such as this is confirmation bias: You look for situations that match, and ignore ones that don’t.  Soon you start seeing the theory working for EVERYthing, because you aren’t paying attention to the times it doesn’t.

 I am trying to avoid that by

1) Being aware of the possibility 

2) Bringing up alternatives where possible and 

3) Calling back to failures in predictions.

Bias can lead you down dark paths. With the Ahab post from the other day, I was so certain that Melville was a Nomad that I started setting up the post with a comparison between him and Mark Twain.  I pivoted quickly to him as a Prophet instead, and could have gone on for a bit how of COURSE Ahab is a Prophet, just like Melville...and that after having to justify Ahab as a Prophet when one of my first calculations ended up with him as an Artist. Which at least is a reminder to be cautious about finding where things match, instead of where they don’t.

Generally, in fact, I’m less convinced of the personality aspects of this model, at least as applied to individuals. While the Assertions in my recent post on how the model works allude to common traits, I prefer not to get too bogged down in what those might be. The historical aspects don’t have quite the same tendency to get caught in parsing out differences between “ruthless” and “amoral” or “rational” versus “practical.”

Nonetheless, some folks seem to be doing well identifying current and ongoing trends based on generational personality profiles.  And to the extent that is tied closely to the rest of the model, some acknowledgement must be given. It’s still possible this is the perfectly natural tendency to find order in chaos. That the model is explained as tied to basic human aspects makes me think that it will ultimately be shown correct.